Whenever we encounter misinformation, the temptation is to engage with it and try to correct the mistaken individual. Research from the University of Pennsylvania suggests this might not be the most effective approach, and “bypassing” it is likely to be just as effective.
While debunking falsehoods with contrary facts may seem like a logical way to change people’s beliefs, it often proves challenging. To bypass this issue, the researchers suggest the use of a new strategy that involves identifying a desired conclusion, such as the safety of vaccines, and then providing accurate information that supports that conclusion without directly refuting misinformed claims.
Making the case
This approach circumvents the potential drawbacks of correcting misinformation, which can be met with resistance and may even further entrench false beliefs. For example, instead of trying to refute the belief that vaccines cause harm, one could highlight the many positive impacts that vaccines have had around the world, such as significantly reducing child mortality rates.
By focusing on positive information that supports the desired conclusion, the bypassing strategy aims to increase the likelihood that individuals will come to the correct conclusion without feeling attacked or resistant.
“A fear that vaccines cause autism might be one belief that shapes a person’s attitude toward vaccines,” the researchers explain, “but humans hold many beliefs at once. Bringing attention to positive ones can change people’s minds.”
The best approach
In a series of experiments, the efficacy of the bypassing strategy was put to the test. Participants were presented with an article containing false claims that a newly-developed genetically modified (GM) corn product induces severe allergic reactions.
In the first two experiments, some participants were given a corrective article that refuted the previous misinformation using facts and an alternative explanation. Meanwhile, others received an article highlighting a positive aspect of GM foods, such as their role in saving bees or addressing global hunger. This latter approach aimed to bypass the misinformation altogether.
To establish a control group, some participants did not receive a second article, while others were presented with a second article unrelated to the GM corn topic. In a third experiment, a different misinformation article claimed falsely that GM corn accelerates tumor growth in rats.
Throughout these experiments, the researchers gauged the participants’ attitudes towards policies that restrict the production of GM foods, evaluating them as either favorable or unfavorable, as well as their intention to support such policies.
Bypassing misinformation
The findings revealed that both the bypassing and corrective approaches led to reduced support for restrictions on GM foods, indicating that both methods effectively mitigated the initial impact of the misinformation regarding GM foods causing allergies. These results were consistent across participants’ attitudes towards GM restrictions and their intention to support these restrictions, which exhibited less positivity.
Given the rampant spread of misinformation in our interconnected world, the researchers emphasize that bypassing should be considered a valuable tool for policymakers and influential individuals in combatting such misinformation. By strategically employing bypassing techniques, they assert that it is possible to counteract the detrimental effects of misinformation and promote a more informed public discourse.
“There’s this perceived pressure to go out and debunk misinformation, but we can also strengthen other beliefs and consider misinformation within the wider system of beliefs people hold,” the researchers conclude. “Bypassing allows you to work from the point of view of what conclusion you want—highlighting beliefs that support it instead of focusing solely on contradicting the misinformation.”
